dragonagefandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Armor schematics
Guarantees for Acquisition Since the big page got split, I figured I'd repost my thought here and on the other one: Now, a lot of these schematics have locations under 'Acquisition,' and that gives the impression that they're guaranteed drops. However, I've found a lot of them are in fact random loot, which might confuse readers. I propose we either make a 'Guarantee?' column with a simple Yes or No next to it, or restrict 'Acquisition' to such guaranteed yield points, which would require investigating every one of them and removing non-guaranteed information, replacing with "Random loot" as already exists in some cells. The latter is more work, but the former eats up extra space. Either way, the definition of "guarantee" would include, but not be limited to, vendors and fixed containers. A fixed container is, of course, one whose contents remain the same no matter how many times you search it, which I further define as any container whose contents will not change even when you save and reload from outside its map zone (and some containers change contents just by reloading a save from right next to it). Any other thoughts? 00:10, May 3, 2015 (UTC) (EDIT: Query answered here, direct conversation to that page.) 05:16, May 3, 2015 (UTC) Am I the only one with the Cowl of the Pure Schematics having 5 cloth for stats? Def is still 12.-- (talk) 13:00, October 5, 2015 (UTC)nirikiriso Slots I think there should be a slots column for armor and on the other page, weapons. Since, AFAICT, a schematic has either all slots of its type (e.g., for armor, arms and legs) or none, this should be a Y/N column. I'm willing to do the table work, but only if it won't be undone later. DaBarkspawn (talk) 01:52, January 3, 2016 (UTC) : Hey DaBarkspawn, all armors will have an upgrade slot with Trespasser installed (Empty Sigil), and to make things worse several armors have multiple stats and new purchase and value prices, I am in the process of adjusting this, please see upgrade adn notes section in the following for examples: : In Peace, Vigilance : Masterwork Vanguard Coat : Antaam-saar : I was planning on working on schematics in the same way. Personally I think leave it the way it is as a Y/N might be confusing pending DA:I being played on old gen vs new gen console and if Trespasser has been installed. :: Hey, Zj24. So, a few points to make. ::: I think that it generates even more confusion to try and wire the wiki so that every possible combination of DLC and patch is covered. I didn't find your examples above clear at all because of the stretching of the row width caused by too much in one cell in the summary page. I think that were I to try something like that, I would normalize the row into two rows: (armor) and (armor, Trespasser). ::: I play on PC, not console, so I was blissfully unaware of the compatibility problem. That said, the PS3, which Trespasser doesn't run on, is what, ten years old now? There's no way I could run even vanilla DA:I on a ten year old PC with a ten year old graphics card, so the legacy compatibility argument doesn't carry much weight. Indeed, I think the wiki should follow BioWare's lead: when they obsolete platforms, so should we. ::: I can see where the sigils would confuse the issue of just Y/N, but there is no reason why it couldn't be expanded to a small set of abbreviations: S/A/L for sigil/arms/leg. Perhaps if I explain the use case, you might see where the benefit is. It is not an uncommon strategy in crafting games to use the wiki to pick out a shopping list for the primary team, obtain the recipes and components, and outfit them as desired. In this mode, one compares say, all tier 4 medium armors against each other and in order to do that, it is important to know whether a schematic provides slots. As an example, Wrath of Lovias Schematic is the only tier for staff schematic, so if that is important to the player, then a simple annotation (B/G/R for Blade/Grip/Rune) highlights this clearly and immediately. :::: Two things are worth noting here: :::: Trespasser does not add slots to weapons that don't have them and so there are still many weapons schematics without slots. :::: Even with addition of sigils, those are more analogous to Rune slots in weapons, not like arms or legs which modify the armor using the standard crafting mechanisms and so in terms of comparing one schematic to another (the purpose of a summary page), sigils don't change much. ::: DaBarkspawn (talk) 01:06, January 4, 2016 (UTC) ::::: As Zj24 pointed out, all armor now has slots when you have Trespasser installed, so a y/n option wouldn't work. I'm neutral about whether or not to add fields stating whether or not weapons have slots. One the one hand, schematics technically don't have any slots so it feels sort of weird denoting something like that on these articles (they're present on the weapon and armor articles, though, like Medium armor (Inquisition)), but on the other hand I can see how it would be useful. :::::: So, let's return to the utility of this. If I bother to put in the work on this, will it stay or will you just have someone toss all my work out as you did with WEWH? DaBarkspawn (talk) 15:37, January 4, 2016 (UTC) ::::::: Wiki's are malleable and constantly changing. With so many people working on these things there's no guarantee anything written will stay unchanged. That's just not how wikis work. It's up to you (like it is to all us contributors) whether you want to put time into something that you're ultimately never going to be able to claim "ownership" of. -- 19:54, January 4, 2016 (UTC) ::::: However, I am completely against your suggestion of eradicating the wiki of information pertaining to older gen systems just because they're not able to support the newest patches or DLC. You have to remember that just because someone has a new-gen system it doesn't mean they have all of the (somewhat pricey) DLC. If these changes were from a patch that was put in place 10 years ago you may have a point, but these patches and DLC are only months old and therefore the old information shouldn't just be wiped out. If you have suggestions for modifying the existing templates, by all means play around with them in a sandbox and we can see if they're better. -- 03:02, January 4, 2016 (UTC) :::::: I think we are only speaking in differences of time, not of nature. Eventually, the next-next-gen console will come out and eventually the old content will need to go away. I'm just more willing to clean out the cruft sooner than ten years from now because having multiple version contents on the same row is cluttered and hard to read. Rather than muck with the templates, what I would do is what I said above: normalize into different rows. This probably translates into multiple stats columns on the specific page in order for the template to pick it up as separate rows. I am not sure Wikia templates can do that. In any case, this was something of a side trip, I don't care that much about console info obviously, it was just what leapt out at me from the examples above. DaBarkspawn (talk) 15:37, January 4, 2016 (UTC)